20 comments

• Comment Link Sunday, 03 February 2013 18:09 posted by Baruch

  This was a really disappointing semi-debate. Only Dr. Kellerman made sense, perhaps because he was a physician. He spoke to the point and dealt with the issue. Ms. Pipes spoke to a completely different topic, one with which we can empathize, but which had nothing to do with end-of-life care. The lawyer needs help. Prof Singer did not do well.
  But there is such a thing as painful, wasteful, futile prolongation of life. Dr. Kellerman put it well: when there is no chance for improvement or cure, offer compassionate care.
  Do not ration treatment on the basis of cost but on the basis of medical value.
  Try not to focus on the aged; end-life-care applies to neonates, children, adolescents, adults and the old.
  The same principles apply regardless of age.

• Comment Link Sunday, 06 January 2013 19:59 posted by James

  I really enjoyed listening to Dr. Kellermann debate this issue. I'm looking forward to seeing how the Obama admin continues to dissuade healthcare professionals and for-profit hospitals from committing fraud. I was hoping for more discussions on hospices in this debate, but maybe next time.

• Comment Link Saturday, 05 January 2013 17:21 posted by chris

  I don't know if we should or should not ration end of life care. What I do know is that we shouldn't start expensive unnecessary wars, or try to reform the rest of the world, but instead think about our own citizens for a change.

• Comment Link Friday, 04 January 2013 21:07 posted by Kenda

  This was the first Intelligence Squared Debate I ever heard, and it was excellent, civil and well structured. But the balance of the sides was uneven, with the better debaters and stronger arguments on the "for" side. I agree with some of the other postings, that the panel against the motion was much weaker than the panel for it. In particular, Connor was stolid and unsubstantiated, full of hollowed-out buzzwords and hot wind.

• Comment Link Friday, 04 January 2013 17:00 posted by Max

  Liberals voted for obamacare not realizing that they too would get old and the same death panels would decide their fate. Ignorance has high consequences and liberals voted for it. They voted for empty promises and that is just what they will get, lots of emptiness....

• Comment Link Friday, 04 January 2013 12:55 posted by Manix

  Good debate. Any legislation implemented should encourage the responsible parties to advocate for realistic decisions about the life of their loved ones, while in the hospital bed. Kellermann has a strong, humane argument that facilitates realistic and sensitive decision-making regarding under what conditions a person's life should be extended: communication and objective medical information at the most basic level, between relatives, patient, and physicians. Laws must facilitate this process, while ensuring that a 20 y/o person will not die because resources were not properly allocated. We all want to keep our loved ones with us "a little longer". But the right decision, at that very moment, may not necessarily be what we want. It is at this moment when something or someone needs to step in and help us understand that it's time to let go. We also need to hold the government accountable in reducing wasteful spending, not just in the healthcare system, but across the board. Let us remember that, as someone else said, "you can have all the money in the world and the best technology is not going to keep you alive when your day has come".

• Comment Link Thursday, 03 January 2013 00:19 posted by Stephen Malinowski

  I don't see how end-of-life care --- or *any* kind of health care, for that matter --- can help but be rationed. Any time you need health care, there is the opportunity to spend arbitrarily more money --- more tests, more doctors' opinions, more drugs, more therapy. We're *always* rationing, always drawing the line somewhere, and saying "that's enough --- more than this just isn't worth the money (or the effort)." The question is how this rationing is to be done. Should we let a young person without health insurance die because they don't have the money for a life-saving treatment? Should we spend thousands of dollars a day to keep a patient with advanced Alzheimer's alive? If we only have enough money to pay for one or the other, which should it be? These are the kinds of questions we need to be addressing; the question of whether we must ration is moot.

• Comment Link Sunday, 11 November 2012 21:37 posted by Dan

  Just heard a re-broadcast of the debate. How could they NOT have a doctor on the against side? Although, I think that the arguments of Kellermann and Singer were sharper, I actually agreed with Ken Connor when he said during his closing argument: This does not have to be a case of one or the other. I believe this to be true.
  
  As Americans, we should be willing to pay a large amount for health care - period -- so this means NO to rationing for the elderly as well as making sure everyone is insured. Does this mean an amazingly expensive Star Trekian health care system? You bet, but that's what we should want. Thus, we should focus our time on reducing costs in other areas of our lives. Besides finding ways to reduce waste in the health care industry, energy, could be a lot cheaper if we really wanted it to be. Also, we have become a more materialistic society wasting our money on many gadgets we don't need. Maybe it's time to set our priorities a little differently -- we can't have it all, but we when it comes to our health, we should want no less.

• Comment Link Thursday, 08 November 2012 14:27 posted by Terri

  As an ER nurse I could not agree more with this motion . We intubated 97 yo people with sepsis and send them to the ICU , I ran across a 98yo guy who was getting chemo for lung cancer and don't for one minute think your advanced directive means anything - I recently took care of a woman who had a dnr/dni on file - she was gravely ill and would have died but even though she had the directive in place , when asked , her husband asked that she be intubated , which she was and then admitted to the ICU , only to die a day or two later but not before racking up 10's of thousands of dollars in - yes- wasted care and resources . It really is a travesty .

• Comment Link Thursday, 08 November 2012 00:49 posted by Paul G

  This debate was, for me, a microcosm of the 2012 presidential election.
  
  In one corner (for the motion), was a side I don't particularly agree with philosophically. But the individuals were well spoken, thoughtful, and frankly sounded like they knew what they were talking about.
  
  In the other corner (against the motion), was a side I initially felt very good about. But the debaters were wretched. Their logic was flawed, their attacks were ad hominem, and they generally made no sense. Ms. Pipes essentially took the position that all people should have access to all procedures at all times, which certainly sounds nice... unless one considers the fiscal implications of her proposal.
  Both of these debaters against the motion were so unpalatable, I found myself thinking, "if they're against the motion, I think I'm for it."
  
  What happened to the intelligent conservatives?